The law that Obama broke

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

And what are the true implications?

That Obama broke the law.

LOL.

Ok, let's try this one...let's say your argument, and others, that Obama broke the law because he "ordered" Hagel to break the law...I'll call it the Manson defense...is logical (which it is not....at all).

What is the FIRST step that has to happen BEFORE Obama would even be considered for being part of breaking the law?

I'll give you a hint...FIRST, someone else would have to be charged and found guilty of breaking the law....who would that person be?

He's guilty by his own admission.

He (Obama) took ownership of this. He has stated it time and time again.

Why are you dodging so much?

It's fine that he took ownership of it...he still can't be charged with a crime of ordering someone else to break the law if that original person is never convicted of breaking the law.

I'll say it for you. Before any of your conspiratorial fantasies come true...House Republicans would have to charge their fellow Republican, Chuck Hagel, of breaking the law.

Now tell me, how likely do you think that is?

a reply to: kruphix

So a conviction has to occur before someone can be identified as breaking the law?

My gods! If avoiding the issue were an Olympic event, you'd get the gold!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

So a conviction has to occur before someone can be identified as breaking the law?

My gods! If avoiding the issue were an Olympic event, you'd get the gold!

Seriously? What exactly am I avoiding?

I'm not the one trying to twist logic and laws to say that a law that applies to the Secretary of Defense has been broken by the President.

And now it seems like you are saying, not only has the President broken the law that only applies to the Secretary of Defense, but that the Secretary of Defense didn't break the law.

This is just another case of someone hating Obama so much that they willingly abandon logic and reality to hold on to a fantasy about him breaking a law he literally can't break.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.

www.youtube.com...

Oh not so fast...

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.

www.youtube.com...

Oh not so fast...

Democrats are saying the law was violated. Time for an investigation. If Obama is cleared then so be it. If not then....

a reply to: beezzer

Rant on............The law Obama broke......I am sorry but signing the patriot act and the many other things make me laugh out loud at this thread.


Sorry Op this is a good thread and I love your posts.......Rant off.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

So a conviction has to occur before someone can be identified as breaking the law?

My gods! If avoiding the issue were an Olympic event, you'd get the gold!

Par for the course…gotta pass the bill to see what's inside remember.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: beezzer

Rant on............The law Obama broke......I am sorry but signing the patriot act and the many other things make me laugh out loud at this thread.


Sorry Op this is a good thread and I love your posts.......Rant off.

And ?

The current guy EXPANDED those powers, that was an expansion of the CLinton era 'terrorism' crapola that was an extension of the FISA act of the Carter administration.

And then created the 'affordable' care act with its spy apparatus that makes the Patriot Act look like amateur hour.

And was thousands of pages LONGER.

What anyone is even bringing up the 'Patriot Act' is nothing but deflection because some people don't want to talk about the current guy in the oval office.

a reply to: beezzer

He broke more than one there !

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[1] Senator Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995.[2][3] The bill was co sponsored by Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter.[4] Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives.[3] Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neo96
Ever president since Kennedy was a criminal. This is systematic planned destabilization of a country using the currency and apathy as a weapon.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: neo96
Ever president since Kennedy was a criminal. This is systematic planned destabilization of a country using the currency and apathy as a weapon.

Thank you for validating the OP.

Wasn't so hard was it?

a reply to: neo96

I am a simple man with simple ideas of right and wrong. You can try and spin them all you want. I believe both sides of the aisle are corrupted with the progressive mindset. Few in power are not at this point in history.


The law of the land set in place many years ago is but a fart in the wind at this point as apathy and the progressive mindset rule the day.

a reply to: SubTruth

Ever president since Kennedy was a criminal.

Spin what ?

'Every president since Kennedy was a criminal.'

EVERY including the current guy.

a reply to: neo96

Well he does come after Kennedy right.......We are all ruled by the same masters. Mr. Paul is a prime example of this, even his own party attacked him. I wonder why. Wait I know he was not a progressive looking to undermine the country.

a reply to: beezzer

Intelligence gathered suggested that Bergdahl's "health was deteriorating," Hagel told host David Gregory in an interview from Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.

"This was essentially an operation to save the life of Sgt. Bergdahl," Hagel added. "We had information that his health could be deteriorating rapidly. There was question about his safety. We found an opportunity. We took that opportunity.

"I’ll stand by that decision. I signed off on that decision. The president made the ultimate decision."

Full interview with Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense


They fully admitted to breaking the law.

a reply to: neo96

How cool would it be if Obama changed his mind about liberty and freedom. He could make stand against this crap and would go down in history as one of the best presidents of all time. It would be like a breath of fresh air into this country.

Yeah he did, and makes no 'apology' for it.

President Obama: ‘I Make No Apologies for POW’s Return’

www.washingtonpost.com...

Keyword there ?

I meaning our lord and 'savior' may the sun never fade from his 'glorious' visage.

Obama.

Silly rabbit, laws apply only to the little people, not to dear leader.

I'm a little baffled by the idea that the law didn't apply to Obama, but only to Hagel.

Hagel's immediate supervisor (Obama), knew that Hagel was about to break the law, he had the power to stop it, he had the time to stop it, and he decided not to stop it. Accessory before the fact?

Accessory before the fact refers to a person who aids, abets, counsels, commands or encourages the commission of a felony without actually being present at the scene. Such a person is also guilty of the crime.

I'm not interested in making distinctions for a courtroom. Yes, for a conviction at law the offense must be a felony, and yes, the original crime must be tried either before or at the same time as the accessory's, but that's not the point. We know things are violations of law, even if the individual isn't convicted. We can't base our notions of "Right" and "Wrong" on each individual judge and case.

We Know Hagel didn't meet the requirements of the law. We know that Obama aided, counseled, and encouraged Hagel.

Consider the CEO of a company whose employees defrauded customers without his knowledge. Is he immune to law suits and prosecution? Of course not, he is assumed to have the duty to know about these things. Claiming that the fault was Hagel's and Obama is blameless seems to be based in emotion rather than thought. Emotion is good, don't get me wrong. Sometimes, though, it's not the right tool to use.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.

Oh I think this is Obama 100% as usual.

He and his White House staff are experts at micro-managing.

No way the Sec of Defense did this "on his own".

Ludicrous indeed.

Everything done by any Cabinet head is 100% micro-managed by Obama & The White House committee.

This move was just another test to determine how far they can actually go.